Why I’m a Capitalist
by Chris on May.22, 2007, under General Thoughts
Dependency.
More specifically, I’m unconvinced that it’s for the best to depend on others for the necessities and desires of life any more than is absolutely necessary.
As an example, obviously only one data point, take the Greyhound strike that is going on right now. This is a case where, because the users of the service are dependent on the providers in a very clear, often-inextricable fashion, the providers of the service have been able to cause them no end of grief by withholding service.
Make no mistake; I believe that the other component of this is that those that provide a service are freely allowed to decline to continue to provide it, for whatever reason they choose. I don’t have to agree with the reason, just with the right to perform the action.
This acceptance, however, leads me to my main point, which is that depending on others for services is a dangerous game; you are gambling that they’ll never choose to revoke that service, despite the fact that threatening to do so at times when the service is most needed to you results in immense potential gains for them. It’s unlikely in normal relations: One’s friends rarely say “Oh, you need a ride? Sorry, I’m not giving rides anymore… for free.” This doesn’t hold with people for whom you are just another
So, think twice before you make choices that increase your dependency on third parties that do not have an interest in your wellbeing. I do.
May 22nd, 2007 on 6:27 pm
We didn’t talk as much in school as we perhaps should have (though I remain thankful for the tip you gave me about that VNV concert a couple of years back). I include this to offer something of a clue as to how the hell I saw this.
While I largely agree with you (to the consternation of a lot of people who do have an interest in my well-being whose help I try and do without as much as possible), I’m not sure that this is an argument for any particular political/economic system (as your title presents it) as much as it is a fact of life. Or, more specifically, an essential fact of civilization, more inescapable the larger they grow. Division of labour and specialisation equate to dependence.
A society this large and complex, whether capitalist, socialist, or communist, makes dependence on at least some level a necessity. The only difference is the (stated, at least) motives of those you depend on. The problem with communism is that they’re lying when they say they care about you. The problem with capitalism is that they’re telling the truth when they say they don’t.
The solution…downscaling society? It isn’t something I advocate, but I suspect that’s because I find the status quo tolerable compared to the alternatives. As I said, I don’t know you as well as I might wish, but I’ve been reading your blog long enough to suspect you don’t.
-D.
May 23rd, 2007 on 8:54 am
Heh. I wish I could place a face to the suggestion in question; I have the vaguest memory of it, but no specifics; it was at Macewan, right? Thanks, regardless, for sparing me the wondering about how the hell some random stranger found me
I’ve long held the belief that, rather than advocating a particular economic model for a whole society, top-to-bottom, it is instead more optimal to hybridize the system; it makes sense once a certain (unspecified) threshold is reached to have an individualistic model, but below said threshold a socialist/communal model is instead optimal.
No idea what that threshold is.
The reason I associate capitalism with the resistance to dependency is that non-capitalist systems require dependency as a fundamental characteristic; they do so by imposing dependency upon their adherents through governmental or societal pressures. Capitalism is the sole economic model that permits optional dependency, which is the key here, I think.
Digressing: You like-a the VNV? I’ve become, I’ll admit, a bit disillusioned with them, but what can you do? At least they’re not as assy as Covenant has become, in recent years
May 23rd, 2007 on 6:45 pm
No, it was at the U of A. I used to take CompSci there. Albino kid with a cane. That’s probably enough to jog your memory of me if any of it remains.
I see your point about capitalism, though it seems to me that dependency isn’t optional under it, but rather imposed by mainly economic pressures-the efficiency of division of labour, etc, etc. The difference is that economic pressures are relatively impersonal, but you are no less dependent on someone you pay than you are on someone who is obligated by law or peer pressure to provide you a service.
As for VNV, I’ll admit that there aren’t as many “OMG MUST LISTEN” tracks on their last two albums as there were on some of the earlier ones, but I’ll still call myself a fan. I haven’t heard any recent Covenant: have they gone that far downhill?
May 24th, 2007 on 7:23 am
Ah, now I remember.
Regarding (first) your comments on dependency. I think that the key point is that the imposition you’re talking about is still optional; you don’t have to accept the obligations if you choose to recuse yourself from the benefits thereof. This means that you do have greater freedom, and let’s be clear on terms here: The choice between two undesirable outcomes is still a choice, and your position there might well be the product of prior choices, although exceptions must be made for circumstances over which one has no control.
Now, re: VNV et al, or more specifically Covenant: I couldn’t speak for everyone, but given that I prefer music that doesn’t suck harder than a high-priced Bangkok hooker, I’ve kind of stopped listening to them
I’ve moved on to printer noises and clicks and pops. That, and cheesy power-ballad heavy metal. Ah, the good stuff